[robmausser]

What VIA service would they possibly be good for? They are designed for Commuter Rail after all…

They are being used for comm rail but they are definitely more posh and were designed for intercity rail if you ever travel on one. Baggage storage, comfortable seats, overhead bins, bathrooms.

They could easily be converted to be used as DMU's on the areas that VIA currently and previously used DMUs. Thats what we were talking about. Replacing the RDC's. I think they would be a perfect replacement for the RDCs.

They would need to be modded with foldout stairs like the LRCs have because they are high platform, but NS did have this as an option when they were made, i'm sure its possible to get them modified for such.

 

[roger1818]

A while back I stumbled across VIA Rail's Triennial Plan (dated September 17, 2018) which lists the track owned by VIA Rail. The following I knew about and make total sense:

• Alexandria Sub (milepost 0.40 to 76.43),
• Beachburg Sub (milepost 0.00 to 6.00),
• Smiths Falls Sub (milepost 0.00 to 34.40),
• Brockville Sub (milepost 0.10 to 27.80), and
• Chatham Sub (milepost 63.90 to 105.60).

However, the following two caught me off guard:

• Bridge Sub (milepost 15.71 to 15.90), and
• Grimsby Sub (milepost 0.35 to 0.47).

I double checked against CN's Three-Year Rail Network Plan (dated July 4, 2019), and sure enough they don't include those sections of track. They only have listed:

• Bridge Sub (milepost 0.00 to 15.70), and
• Grimsby Sub (milepost 0.47 to 43.70).

After a bit of digging, I discovered that the section of the Bridge Sub in question is the stub of track leading into Gare du Palais in Quebec City, so that makes sense (AFAIK, VIA owns the station).

The Grimsby Sub is confusing though. From my digging, Niagara Falls Station is at milepost 0.6, so that would mean that VIA owns is the 0.12 miles (approx. 195m) of track 0.13 miles (approx. 210m) east of the station. According to my estimates, that would be the section of track highlighted in the map below. Does this make any sense to anyone?

View attachment 353932
map courtesy Canadian Rail Atlas

Just as a follow-up, I mentioned these two sections of track to the RAC and they have updated the Canadian Rail Atlas accordingly:

VIA Grimsby Sub (milepost 0.35 to 0.47), Niagara Falls, courtesy Canadian Rail Atlas

VIA Bridge Sub (milepost 15.71 to 15.90), Quebec City, courtesy Canadian Rail Atlas

 

[Urban Sky]

They are being used for comm rail but they are definitely more posh and were designed for intercity rail if you ever travel on one. Baggage storage, comfortable seats, overhead bins, bathrooms.

They could easily be converted to be used as DMU's on the areas that VIA currently and previously used DMUs. Thats what we were talking about. Replacing the RDC's. I think they would be a perfect replacement for the RDCs.

They would need to be modded with foldout stairs like the LRCs have because they are high platform, but NS did have this as an option when they were made, i'm sure its possible to get them modified for such.

You want to operate a DMU designed for short trips with commuters and airport passengers on a 8+ hour service with passengers more likely to transport canoes, fishing gear and sometimes even ATVs than briefcases and suitcases?

 

[robmausser]

You want to operate a DMU designed for short trips with commuters and airport passengers on a 8+ hour service with passengers more likely to transport canoes, fishing gear and sometimes even ATVs than briefcases and suitcases?

I fail to see how any of that would be any more or less possible than the RDCs.

 

[ec_traindriver]

You want to operate a DMU designed for short trips with commuters and airport passengers on a 8+ hour service with passengers more likely to transport canoes, fishing gear and sometimes even ATVs than briefcases and suitcases?

If I'm not mistaken, the Nippon Sharyo DMUs can be configured for basically any operation. While DMUs for SMART are essentially comprised of gangway-less A-cars and B-cars, which only differ in internal seat and amenities arrangement, DMUs for UPX have been designed with non-aerodynamic, gangway-ed C-cars that can be used also as middle units. I fail to see how modified C-cars couldn't be ordered as baggage or combine units (similar to RDC-2/3/4s) to be used in the middle of a consist.

 

[cplchanb]

Good to see the multitude of ideas and support for the multiple unit front. As mentioned before its incredibly inefficient to have a loco designed to pull 10 cars just pull 3. Its a real shame that there hasnt been
any development from any of the north american suppliers after the RDC. Not to mention most intercity rail providers are still in hub to hub mentality

 

[Urban Sky]

I fail to see how any of that would be any more or less possible than the RDCs.

According to Wikipedia, there are the following RDC types:

Budd manufactured five basic variants of the RDC:[15]

• The RDC-1: an 85 ft (25.91 m) all-passenger coach seating 90 passengers. It weighed 118,300 pounds (53.7 t) empty.
• The RDC-2: an 85 ft (25.91 m) baggage and passenger coach configuration (combine) seating 70 passengers. The baggage area was 17 ft (5.18 m) long. It weighed 114,200 pounds (51.8 t) empty.
• The RDC-3: an 85 ft (25.91 m) variant with a railway post office, a baggage compartment and 48 passenger seats. It weighed 117,900 pounds (53.5 t) empty.
• The RDC-4: a 73 ft 10 in (22.50 m) variant with only the railway post office and baggage area. It weighed 109,200 pounds (49.5 t) empty.
• The RDC-9: an 85 ft (25.91 m) passenger trailer seating 94, a single 300-horsepower (220 kW) engine and no control cab.

Several railroads used the designation "RDC-5": the Canadian Pacific Railway for RDC-2s converted to full-coach configuration and the Canadian National Railway for RDC-9s it purchased from the Boston and Maine Railroad.[16]

I wouldn't trust too much VIA's website to provide an exact and up-to-date break-down of their RDC fleet and instill refer to the Canadian Trackside Guide 2021, which lists the following RDCs as still in possession of VIA:

• 1xRDC-1: 6105
• 3xRDC-2: 6208, 6217 and 6219
• 1xRDC-4: 6251

As you can see above, out of 5 remaining RDC's, 3 have a large baggage compartment (reducing seat capacity by a full 20 seats) and one has no seats which reduce their capacity to carry bulky items. I don't recall exactly the baggage facilities of the UPX rolling stock, but they certainly have much less generous baggage storage facilities.

I fail to see how modified C-cars couldn't be ordered as baggage or combine units (similar to RDC-2/3/4s) to be used in the middle of a consist.

Because the production line is closed and no manufacturer has signaled any interest in reopening it...

 

[cplchanb]

According to Wikipedia, there are the following RDC types:



I wouldn't trust too much VIA's website to provide an exact and up-to-date break-down of their RDC fleet and instill refer to the Canadian Trackside Guide 2021, which lists the following RDCs as still in possession of VIA:

• 1xRDC-1: 6105
• 3xRDC-2: 6208, 6217 and 6219
• 1xRDC-4: 6251

As you can see above, out of 5 remaining RDC's, 3 have a large baggage compartment (reducing seat capacity by a full 20 seats) and one has no seats which reduce their capacity to carry bulky items. I don't recall exactly the baggage facilities of the UPX rolling stock, but they certainly have much less generous baggage storage facilities.


Because the production line is closed and no manufacturer has signaled any interest in reopening it...

just as theyve been doing for the last 50 years, via can strip the cars to the shell and rebuild them from the inside out. I wonder whats the maximum number of coupled cars is the NS dmus designed for. On the brochure it shows 3
but can we have more c cars coupled together?

 

[ec_traindriver]

Just to be precise, there were also sidings along the Kingston Sub, and for that matter throughout the country, built to a fairly consistent standard of 6000-7000 feet, which was as long as trains were traditionally. After the elimination of the caboose, and consistent with technological advances in distributed power (remote control of midtrain and rear of train locomotives) the entire industry found ways to make trains longer, reaping huge productivity and cost savings gains in the process. Besides not fitting in sidings, today’s longer trains handle differently, so cannot be quite as nimble as shorter trains.

One is tempted to bring up E Hunter Harrison as being a driving force in these changes. It would be fairer to say that he simply applied pressure to both CN and CP managers, who were a bit change resistant and were not in a hurry to adopt what was already proven and going on elsewhere. EHH’s particular imprint was to find ways to manage oversize trains without spending much if any capital to lengthen sidings. He may have gone too far in the short term, but both CN and CP have recalibrated and are doing what makes good economic and operational sense to restore passing capacity for longer freight trains.

The change in operating practices doomed passenger trains both on the long haul routes and in the corridor, because it removed much of the the potential for faster trains (pax) to overtake slower ones (freight).

The point being - this was not some nefarious conspiracy to harm VIA. It was an orderly evolution of the industry and was unavoidable. Certainly, government could have taken up the slack to protect passenger train capacity by pumping more money into extended sidings etc…. but there is no political appetite to do that..

This is the natural outcome of an industry that is more focused on short-term profits rather than excelling in railroading.

To whoever says that private railroads in North America are the most efficient and the best one could imagine getting from the industry, I suggest taking a look at the data comparing freight volumes between the US and the Soviet Union — sorry, not sorry — considering that present-day Russia accounted for 2/3 of such freight traffic.

So, while I agree that the evolution in the industry was not a conspiracy against VIA, I completely disagree with the claim that this was the "unavoidable evolution" of the industry. There were alternative models available, but the policymakers in the US and Canada were persuaded otherwise.

 

[ec_traindriver]

just as theyve been doing for the last 50 years, via can strip the cars to the shell and rebuild them from the inside out. I wonder whats the maximum number of coupled cars is the NS dmus designed for. On the brochure it shows 3
but can we have more c cars coupled together?

I think it depends on the electronics of the units, so in theory it would be possible — I guess.

 

[Urban Sky]

just as theyve been doing for the last 50 years, via can strip the cars to the shell and rebuild them from the inside out. I wonder whats the maximum number of coupled cars is the NS dmus designed for. On the brochure it shows 3
but can we have more c cars coupled together?

As if VIA didn't have already enough incompatible fleet types. But anyways, where would you want to deploy the Sharyos and who would maintain them?

 

[kEiThZ]

As if VIA didn't have already enough incompatible fleet types. But anyways, where would you want to deploy the Sharyos and who would maintain them?

Yep. Airlines have learned that maximum commonality helps cut down cost and keep output high. It's always amazing to me that this isn't a prevailing attitude with many rail organizations.

VIA's incredible fleet diversity, was imposed on them. I'm glad they are getting out of it. I hope they don't get pushed to end up all kinds of odd sets again. Heck, I hope the long distance fleet is eventually replaced by Siemens Venture variants too. With Charger locos.

 

[smallspy]

It's always amazing to me that this isn't a prevailing attitude with many rail organizations.

At least where the funding is available, it totally is.

Historically, we have the wholesale retirement of the Fairbanks-Morse fleets on both CN and CP in the 1970s. The en-masse retirements of the ALCo-powered equipment in the 1990s. GO's standardization with F59s starting in the late 1980s. More recently, CN retiring their SD50F fleet when it was deemed that they were no longer standard with anything else in their roster, followed by their SD60Fs, and then their Dash-8s. CP's SD90s. The lists go on.

But some organizations simply aren't in a position with which to do this. VIA Rail is but one example.

Dan

 

[ec_traindriver]

Yep. Airlines have learned that maximum commonality helps cut down cost and keep output high. It's always amazing to me that this isn't a prevailing attitude with many rail organizations.

VIA's incredible fleet diversity, was imposed on them. I'm glad they are getting out of it. I hope they don't get pushed to end up all kinds of odd sets again. Heck, I hope the long distance fleet is eventually replaced by Siemens Venture variants too. With Charger locos.

Well, it depends on your business model: airlines typically focus on one type of model, be it short-haul or long-haul, and therefore acquire their airplanes accordingly. You can't expect a passenger rail operator to only have one type of train unless you plan to only focus on one business model only.

 

[cplchanb]

Well, it depends on your business model: airlines typically focus on one type of model, be it short-haul or long-haul, and therefore acquire their airplanes accordingly. You can't expect a passenger rail operator to only have one type of train unless you plan to only focus on one business model only.

even still airlines dont use an A350 for their regional routes that an A220 would use and vice versa. The example with Via using a loco for 3 cars is just that point. That being said the sight of a mixed trainset just screams of either disorganisation or just poor equipment in the inventory.